Bring Phil Goff to Justice

On the 5th of July, Conservative speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern had a presentation cancelled at a Auckland Council venue (A government venue). This was on the pretences that Lauren and Stefan would "Stir up ethnic or religious tensions."

Preamble

Sorry, Mr. Mayor as the law states in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 2 "The rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights are affirmed". In Section 3 the Act states "This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done— (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.". (a person in a government position, i.e. Mayor).

Definitions

Because there is no reference to the meaning of "everyone" it is fair to find council in the dictionary in regards to the context of this word.

"Everyone" has two meanings; "everyone" can mean a.) Everyone in a particular group or b.) Everyone, every person. As there is no group referred to as "everyone" then we can safely and educationally assume everyone mean; every person (Citizen or not).

Problem with Goff's ruling

In the Bill of Right Act 1990 it clearly states in Section 13 "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference." which Phil is Okay legally for now, but let's press on.

In the Bill of Rights Act 1990 it states in Section 14 "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." This would mean that everyone has the right to expression and inform people of their opinions, whether wholesome or not, racist or not, in any form they like. (Literally, in any shape they like; on the street, passing out 'racist' pamphlets, posters, In a public place, et cetera.)

Moreover, in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 15 "Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private." (Everyone has the right to teach whatever they want in a public space, i.e. a council venue)

In section 16, the Bill tells us "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly." You would think, by the way Goff was speaking, that they were going to be placing bacon at the door of a mosque (which is still very legal), but Southern and Molyneux were holding a private event in a public space, for people who agree with them. It is not like they were going to be in downtown Auckland preaching "hate".

This is my question to you. How would you like it if this happened to Richard Dawkins or how would the Auckland Peace Action like it if this was done to them. I believe they incite Murder (abortion) with their views but you don't see me protesting against them. Here is why, I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and that the APA are not just wrong, but evil, so I want people to see them and their beliefs. However, they know that Southern and Molyneux are as clean as a proverbial whistle and know if they are allow to speak then people will flock in drove to the message.

So, it is my conclusion, because Phil Goff has broken the law, him and his council should be outed from the council all together. This is the standard I have for all official in this government, National or Local.